Poe v. Van Nort et al Doc.

3
Case 1:06-cv-00029-GCM Document 3 Filed 02/09/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:06CV29-03-MU

RICHARD KEITH POE, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
DR. JOSEPH VAN NORT, et. al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed February 8, 2006. (Document No. 1. )

Plaintiff Complaint, filed as a § 1983 claim, essentially contains allegations of false

documentation of his medical records by various doctors and health care professionals employed at

Memorial Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina. As best as this Court can piece together

from Plaintiff’s Complaint and exhibits, Plaintiff seems to be complaining that the doctors and

medical staff from Mission Memorial Hospital falsified his medical records by relying on hearsay

statements from Plaintiff’s girlfriend and sister in filling out his medical history on two occasions

in April 2001 and February 2002.1 On both of these occasions, Plaintiff was not in custody, but

apparently is now. A case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a deprivation of a right secured

1
In particular, Plaintiff seems to take offense to references in his medical record that
Plaintiff threatened to harm himself and others, that he had a history of violence and that he was
suicidal and depressed. However, there is no allegation that the medical personnel taking down
Plaintiff’s history from Plaintiff’s sister and girlfriend knew the information provided was false.
Additionally, in most cases, the person taking the medical history attributed the information to
the source that provided it.

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 1:06-cv-00029-GCM Document 3 Filed 02/09/2006 Page 2 of 2

by the Constitution by a person acting under color of state law. The doctors and medical personnel

at Mission Memorial Hospital, a private hospital, who treated Plaintiff, a non prisoner at the time,

were not state actors and therefore cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s Complaint

is therefore DISMISSED. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains allegations that this Court

construes as frivolous and clearly do not state a claim for relief. Therefore this case is also dismissed

for failure to state a claim for relief.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is

Dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 9, 2006